EDIT however having said that flippantly, Im sure that most countries have plans of this kind. Gov'ts spend a lot of cash talking a planning for all this stuff, so it not really that fair to single out the US for this type of policy. Question is how feasible they believe the plans to be,......
Like Whitedog said this is old news, but the article itself had some interesting points (thanks Goz). I was especially tickled by the last paragraph:
The doctrine reminds that while first use of nuclear weapons may draw condemnation, "no customary or conventional international law prohibits nations from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict."
Hence America's "nobody but us and our closest friends" attitude to who should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. You see anybody who's got them and is at war may use them, thus we get all this crap with America trying/threatening to stop other countries from getting to that stage in the first place.
Actually the US also has the largest stocks of illegal chemical weapons in the world and has reneged on it's promise to destroy them at the rate demanded by the UN.
Which means whilst it was criticising Hussein's regime for illegal weapons of mass destruction (which didn't exist). It was actually guilty of the same crime - except America really *was* guilty!